Phichayut Phinyo1,2, Jayanton Patumanond2, Panprapha Saenrungmuaeng3, Watcharin Chirdchim4, Tanyong Pipanmekaporn2,5, Apichat Tantraworasin2,6, Theera Tongsong7, Charuwan Tantipalakorn8. 1. Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. 2. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Clinical Statistics, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Mahasarakham University, Maha Sarakham, Thailand. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Phrapokklao Hospital, Chanthaburi, Thailand. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. 6. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. theera.t@cmu.ac.th. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. nokctantipa@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To validate the diagnostic performance of the Early-stage Ovarian Malignancy (EOM) score in an external dataset that includes advanced-stage and metastatic ovarian cancer. METHODS: The data from two cross-sectional cohorts were used in the statistical analysis. The development dataset of the EOM score was collected in Phrapokklao Hospital between September 2013 and December 2017. The validation dataset was collected in Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital between April 2010 and March 2018. The internal and external performance of the EOM score was evaluated in terms of discrimination via area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AuROC) and calibration. RESULTS: There were 270 and 479 patients included in the development and validation datasets, respectively. The prevalence of ovarian malignancy was 20.0% (54/270) in the development set and 30.3% (145/479) in the validation set. The EOM score had excellent discriminative ability in both the development and validation sets (AuROC 88.0 (95% CI 82.6, 93.9) and 88.0 (95% CI 84.3, 91.4), respectively). The EOM score also showed good calibration in both datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The EOM score had consistent diagnostic performance in the external validation data. It is recommended for use as a triage tool in patient referrals instead of the RMI in settings where experienced sonographers are not available.
PURPOSE: To validate the diagnostic performance of the Early-stage Ovarian Malignancy (EOM) score in an external dataset that includes advanced-stage and metastatic ovarian cancer. METHODS: The data from two cross-sectional cohorts were used in the statistical analysis. The development dataset of the EOM score was collected in Phrapokklao Hospital between September 2013 and December 2017. The validation dataset was collected in Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital between April 2010 and March 2018. The internal and external performance of the EOM score was evaluated in terms of discrimination via area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AuROC) and calibration. RESULTS: There were 270 and 479 patients included in the development and validation datasets, respectively. The prevalence of ovarian malignancy was 20.0% (54/270) in the development set and 30.3% (145/479) in the validation set. The EOM score had excellent discriminative ability in both the development and validation sets (AuROC 88.0 (95% CI 82.6, 93.9) and 88.0 (95% CI 84.3, 91.4), respectively). The EOM score also showed good calibration in both datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The EOM score had consistent diagnostic performance in the external validation data. It is recommended for use as a triage tool in patient referrals instead of the RMI in settings where experienced sonographers are not available.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adnexal masses; Diagnosis; Ovarian cancer; Risk of malignancy index
Authors: Caroline Van Holsbeke; Ben Van Calster; Tom Bourne; Silvia Ajossa; Antonia C Testa; Stefano Guerriero; Robert Fruscio; Andrea Alberto Lissoni; Artur Czekierdowski; Luca Savelli; Sabine Van Huffel; Lil Valentin; Dirk Timmerman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Melissa Matz; Michel P Coleman; Helena Carreira; Diego Salmerón; Maria Dolores Chirlaque; Claudia Allemani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Karel G M Moons; Douglas G Altman; Johannes B Reitsma; John P A Ioannidis; Petra Macaskill; Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; David F Ransohoff; Gary S Collins Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 25.391